If a child gets sick and dies because their parent chose to go with faith healing instead of taking the child to the doctor, should the parent be held liable for injury, illness and death that may be caused as a result of those beliefs?
In other words, if someone chooses to rely on faith that a deity will heal their children, and the child is harmed or dies due to the parents reliance on faith (rather than medical help), should the parent then become legally accountable for their inaction and neglect to seek proper care for their child?
2007-09-26 04:58:57 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
As a pastor who believes that God can heal and has experienced healing in my own life,
YES, they should be held responsible. God never told us to be idiots. He never said to ignore conventional medicine. People get crackpot ideas and they have to pay the consequences of their actions.
God DID tell us to honor the authorities that we are under i.e. governments and laws with the ONLY exception of when it is in direct conflict with his law. This doesn't qualify.
Doctors and medical science are a blessing and if God wants to heal us through conventional medicine, then we should just be thankful that we got better.
My instruction would be this:
Pray for healing. Believe in healing. And then go to the doctor and listen to what he tells you. Follow his treatments and pray that when they do that next CAT scan everything will be miraculously gone. It happens. And if it's still there and you need surgery, pray for a successful surgery.
It's one thing to ignore help for yourself, but the people that act irresponsibly towards their kids are no different than people who abuse their kids in other ways.
2007-09-26 05:05:42 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 1⤋
Should the parent of a 17 year old who sneaks out of the house, goes to a party, gets drunk, drives drunk and ends up injuring or killing someone be held legally responsible for that child's actions? From a legal standpoint, that child is a minor, but the parents cannot realistically be held responsible for the actions of a child of that age. You can't control the actions of another person, and while parents are supposed to teach their children appropriate behavior, they can't control what the child does when they (the parents) aren't present. What about the shooters at any of these school massacres? Should their parents be considered morally and legally responsible for those deaths? There is certainly an age where children can tell the difference between right and wrong, and between morally acceptable and unacceptable behavior. It really isn't reasonable to say a parent is responsible for every action of their child from birth to 18.
2016-05-19 00:43:27 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am a strong believer that if a child is sick, it is the parent's responsibility to take care of the child and make sure that they get the proper medical care.
If the child doesn't get the needed medical care because the parents failed to act, then that is child abuse and neglect. That is the end of the story. Those parents should be brought up on charges!
However, there are now statutes in 44 states which contain a provision stating that a child is not to be deemed abused or neglected merely because he or she is receiving treatment by spiritual means, through prayer according to the tenets of a recognized religion.
Some parents believe that the constitutionally protected freedom of religion allows them to choose the method of healing (spiritual or medical) they feel will best benefit their children.
However, this interpretation of the US constitution is in contradiction to important court rulings to the effect that parents may not martyr their children based on parental beliefs and that children cannot be denied essential health care.
(A Christian Scientist would deem spiritual treatment as being "essential health care" that would most expediently lead to their child's health and well being.)
2007-09-26 07:30:36 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
People should be free to chose what they want except when they infringe upon the rights of others. If a child comes to harm due to inaction to seek proper care, and it can be proven that the care would have resulted in healing - proven - then the parents would be responsible. However, if a child or reasoning age stands by their parent's decision of faith healing, then that is none of our business. People have the freedom to chose and this should never be overruled by others. In this case, others who have no faith in the power of faith healing. Live and let live.
2007-09-26 05:04:34 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The parents should be held legally accountable for the child's death. Negligent Homicide. I just found this when I went to see what the correct term was...
Negligent homicide is a charge brought against persons, who by inaction, allow others under their care to die. This offense mostly concerns itself with the death of small infants or children, the handicapped, or the elderly.[verification needed] An example of such a case is when an elderly person is allowed to accumulate bedsores, as they are not helped out of a couch or bed for a prolonged period of time and die as a result of necrotic tissue. If a more able person, often a son or daughter, was present or expected to be present during the time when the elderly person was accumulating bedsores, they may be found liable of negligent homicide, as their inaction and blatant disregard for human life resulted in the death of someone under their care.
Negligent homicide generally only applies if a pattern of negligence resulted in the death of the individual. Turning one's back on a child while he/she falls into a well, while tragic and a result of a moment of negligence, would be considered a horrible accident and a hard lesson, not negligent homicide. This offense is considered less serious than first and second degree murder, in the sense that someone guilty of this offense can expect a more lenient sentence, often with imprisonment time comparable to manslaughter.
They should have added stupid religious beliefs to it too!!!
2007-09-27 22:19:34 · answer #5 · answered by purpledeucegirl06 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A challenge in this quesion is that there would have to be proof that medical help would have definately saved the child, and that relying on Faith harmed the child. Proof may be difficult, just as for a child was 'healed' from faith. What proof could be offered that the western medicine people would accept?
It is common knowledge that the use of western medicine and drugs leads to many illnesses and deaths, despite the good that can be done. Faith healing can be similar with good and bad results for various people.
If a government were to create laws to regulate this issue, it would have to develop a set of criteria that would clearly illustrate the continuum of health situations parents face and define the point at which relying on Faith vs. medicine would be negligent.
This is a difficult issue overall, when a parent feels that to follow their religious beliefs is key to following God's laws, and the society feels that in doing this they violate human laws.
There is no way to handle this situation in which someone, parents or observers, do not end up feeling their beliefs, religious or secular would be violated.
A situation in our culture now is that many end up treating science and western medicine with strong Faith in a manner some see as similar to religious belief. One could ask how much healing with western medicine actually comes from the patients Faith in the doctor.
It may well be that as a society we have a right to make laws to protect children's health based on commonly accepted views of medicine, even if we are ultimately or spiritually wrong to do so.
Those who have children could be given information about health laws, so they make informed choices. If they do not like the laws they could choose to use proper channels to change them as opposed to violating them.
Your question touches the roots of the challenge of living in any society which accepts freedom of belief of diverse people.
2007-09-26 05:53:05 · answer #6 · answered by countrytc 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
YES! Prosecute the parents for criminal neglect resulting in death, and remove any other children from the household.
The parents could defend themselves by showing proof they had positive reason to think said deity would provide the healing to that particular child in a timely manner. Bible doesn't count as that's a 1000 year old document and not current to the immediate situation. Any pastor who advises them as such should be prosecuted under murder.
Parents have an obligation to make sure with their own hands that a child is treated for illness or injury, even though they'd prefer a miracle to happen. All parents would, so that's not the point and it's not sufficient.
2007-09-26 05:06:45 · answer #7 · answered by KC 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
I personely think they shoud face something , thier are only a few sects that follow that teacing Christian scientests, and JW's about blood trans I belive ...but even in days of old the faithful had doc's even Luke was a doc .wine was used as a med at times . So i dont see how they can let a child suffer who may not understand the faith and have what it takes. God can take a life whenever he wants it sick or not young or old .Faith healers show me a true one and not a scam artist .
2007-09-26 05:14:46 · answer #8 · answered by the only 1 hobo 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think that the parents should go on trial for murder for being stupid. If a child dies as a result of their own parent's belief in a fairytale rather than proven science, the parent should pay the consequences. A child does not know any better. It's very sad when a child dies due to their parent's stupidity.
2007-09-26 05:09:05 · answer #9 · answered by chickenbeansoup 1 · 3⤊ 3⤋
If God never intended us to our brain then why did he give us one?
I believe that God expects us to operate within the rules of this universe. Within this universe we have doctors that can patch us up.
It's not a stretch to believe that God might have intended for us to see a doctor for natural healing as opposed to supernatural healing. We are all NOT the Christ. The bible even warns about seeking after miracles - that is akin to testing God.
I think those parents should be sent to prison.
If after prayer the kid doesn't get better then the SMART decision would be go to a doctor.
2007-09-26 05:09:01 · answer #10 · answered by Emperor Insania Says Bye! 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋